Pro-100. - Still Having Problems With Displayed Ink Levels

[websnail]

Well since I've never disabled the ink monitoring and have experienced correct ink monitoring with virgin OEM carts as well as with those I did reset with the resetter from Martin then I would pretty confidently say that it could the DIM that is the culprit.

Does sound like it doesn't it...

So, based on that it's only likely to be affected folk who have been refilling from before the resetter became available and DIM'd things.

You can forget about the triplicate posting Martin. Copying and pasting takes too much out of me.

Thank $deity you weren't around in the days of slate and chalk then eh...

 

[stratman]

The most likely culprit is not DIM itself for there are doubtless dozens who have done this (DIM'ing), then purchased a resetter - the same model as everyone else it seems - and there is no widespread or even concentrated posting about this problem. And we know that Canon has publicly acknowledged ink level monitoring with OEM never reset cartridges that a firmware upgrade (v.1.02 for the Pro-100) was supposed to fix.

Occam's razor, my friends.

 

[jtoolman]

My PRO-100 came with FW 1.02 out of the box. There have been others reporting different FW numbers, such as 1.03 and 1.04 which makes no sense as those two other numbers are not even for the PRO-100.

The only difference between Roy' s situation and mine, is he disabled ink monitoring and I did not. I get the correct ink monitoring behavior and he does not.
I am running 1.02 and he has updated to 1.1 I believe and there is not change. So how do we explain that? I still think there might something to having disabled the ink monitoring.
I am just glad I did not do it.

Joe

 

[stratman]

My PRO-100 came with FW 1.02 out of the box. There have been others reporting different FW numbers, such as 1.03 and 1.04 which makes no sense as those two other numbers are not even for the PRO-100.

If you look back at my post #18 where I quote CAnon directly, the Pro-10 firmware v.1.03 is supposed to fix the ink level monitoring and the firmware fix for the Pro-100 is v.1.02. I'll leave the subsequent firmware upgrade version numbers to you guys as any firmware version v.1.02 and higher should work. I did initially mistake the most current firmware version as v.1.20 due to the file name of the executable file "fuu_-win-pro_100-1_2-ea7.exe" on the Canon web site. However, the most current firmware version I see is v.1.100

The only difference between Roy' s situation and mine, is he disabled ink monitoring and I did not. I get the correct ink monitoring behavior and he does not.
I am running 1.02 and he has updated to 1.1 I believe and there is not change. So how do we explain that? I still think there might something to having disabled the ink monitoring.

I do not discount this at all but it is lower on my list.

1) Where are other reports of this phenomena? Surely Roy is not the only one to reset a "DIM'ed" cartridge.

2) Why would Canon go to the expense of allowing a reset that functions in the critical mission of showing a reset to begin with as well as allowing a proper "empty" or "low" but nothing in between? Wouldn't it make more sense to a ROM chip instead of an EPROM/EEPROM resetable chip. Using just ROM would bypass the aftermarket resetting crowd that includes us as well as the big boy after market ink cartridge sellers. It does not make sense that Canon would go half-assed on this, especially when it probably costs a slight amount more to produce EPROM/EEPROM chip rather than ROM chips.

Until more data is available, or some finds reports similar to Roy's, I doubt DIM is the issue. As I've written before, other possibilities include, but not limited to:

1) Bad chips. Unlikely as multiple colors involved. If they are all of the same batch number than this possibility is increased.

2) Flaw in the resetter.

3) Bad reseting technique.

4) Bad firmware flash upgrade.

5) Bad printer.

Are you willing to print until empty and then DIM your cartridge to hasten the research?

 

[websnail]

Are you willing to print until empty and then DIM your cartridge to hasten the research?

That's my job in the next few days... Just the one cartridge but it's on my list.

Something else the manufacturer has suggested in recent correspondence did make me stop and think though.

It's possible the resetter is not covering a previously undetected change in the chip, but knowing the expertise they have from previous models I'm keeping an open mind on that. So, how about if the cartridge is being remembered by the printer as having been DIM'd?

Easy way to test for that is for a bit of cartridge swapping to go on, in this instance @Roy Sletcher being the current "victim", it would make sense to send one of the DIM'd units to @jtoolman to test the theory.

If a cartridge is still recognised as DIM'd (ie: no gradual ink monitoring) in someone elses printer then the chip is the bit that's being reprogrammed, if the ink monitoring returns to normal, then the chip printer is storing chip id's locally and more likely the vector.


EDIT: Above editing (in bold) to make sense as written and not just in my head...

 

[stratman]

Easy way to test for that is for a bit of cartridge swapping to go on, in this instance @Roy Sletcher being the current "victim", it would make sense to send one of the DIM'd units to @jtoolman to test the theory.

If a cartridge is still recognised as DIM'd (ie: no gradual ink monitoring) in someone elses printer than the chip is the bit that's being reprogrammed, if the ink monitoring returns to normal, then the chip is the vector.

No. You will not have accounted for all variables and it also depends on who does the resetting. It still could be Roy's resetter or Roy's resetting technique or Roy's printer.

Sending jtoolman a cartridge DIM'ed and reset by Roy as well as a cartridge DIM'ed and to be reset by jtoolman would help whittle away at the variables. A cartridge DIM'ed by Roy and reset by jtoolman, found to be properly functioning by jtoolman and then reset again by jtoolman, then sent to Roy to use would also narrow down the possibilities.

There are a number of ways to skin this cat. Not all variables need to be accounted for as long as Roy hits on a winning solution first. Otherwise a lengthier process may be required.

 

[websnail]

Agreed... In truth, I'm being pragmatic about this... As there's a limited number of folk who have had the inks to refill with, much less DIM'd things, and because most will get the resetter before they refill, it's unlikely to affect more than a select group of very early adopters like Roy.

While it would be useful to understand all the variables, the priority is to resolve things enough that hopefully Roy et' al can restore their ink monitoring fully. Anything else is just icing..

 

[mikling]

After Roy's episode, I made an effort to monitor what had been going on and watched my printer closely. After printing I figure about 30-40 letter size pages of targets, I also now see the levels to not have moved. So I open the top, inspect the cartridges and the levels are close to nearly empty.
Roy is onto something as I am now getting the same result.

I've discussed this issue with Redsetter and they will be looking further into it in early January and they perform further tests. Here is what I surmise. They are positive that when the chip is reset, it is reset to the same as new counter value. What they could not confirm is what happens when the chip is DIMed. So non DIMed chips are OK as we are seeing.

By my logic of thought, Canon has been doing the chip thing for years. Redsetter had been doing the resetter thing for years. Canon has had updates on firmware about the chip level thing. I mean after 3-4 generations of chips on printers, you'd think Canon would have figured out how to implement chips without needing to do a firmware update.

So my thinking is this, Canon firmware/driver has a routine where they write to the chip that it has been DIMed. Maybe they did this as an afterthought and that certain printers not having the new firmware would have problems. Thus the Canon firmware update.

it is also possible that Redsetter could have overlooked this initially or maybe their printer did not have the newer firmware that does this and was not able to determine that this wrting to the chip occurs.

What is also strange is that there is now TWO occurrences of requests to DIM on the printer. Whereas before I recall it was only once that a request was made. So this second step might have something to do with it.

There are electronic wars on the Epson side. We now see there could be a similar thing now occurring on the Canon side. HP...it's always been there.

So wait till January or February till they Redsetter evaluates the situation, if you're affected. If you have DIMed and a new resetter from Redsetter cures this, I'll try to have a program of some sorts. Otherwise for those already having a resetter and have not DIMed, all is well. Just don't DIM and why would it be necessary?

Now cross your fingers.......because if that one bit that creates this non interdiate levels issue is a "fusible" link but I think not. I really think Canon monkeyed around to see what they could throw in there. In the meantime, it appears that while the intermediate steps are not reported, the sensor works as it should which is to report low ink point which is the most important aspect.

 

[stratman]

After Roy's episode, I made an effort to monitor what had been going on and watched my printer closely. After printing I figure about 30-40 letter size pages of targets, I also now see the levels to not have moved. So I open the top, inspect the cartridges and the levels are close to nearly empty.
Roy is onto something as I am now getting the same result.

What printer firmware version do you have?

Have you DIM'ed any cartridges and if so are they the ones misbehaving concerning ink level monitoring.

Is this a chip batch issue - ie have you tried different cartridges? If jtoolman can reset his cartridges and not have a problem then why are you?

So my thinking is this, Canon firmware/driver has a routine where they write to the chip that it has been DIMed. Maybe they did this as an afterthought and that certain printers not having the new firmware would have problems. Thus the Canon firmware update.

Do you have knowledge that Canon was addressing a problem with DIM? I highly doubt that, since a new OEM cartridge resolves ink level monitoring as per the report of Roy, and instead would think they were addressing a problem with OEM, never reset, never DIM'ed cartridge ink level monitoring. Canon has no incentive or need to fix a problem affecting refillers.

it is also possible that Redsetter could have overlooked this initially or maybe their printer did not have the newer firmware that does this and was not able to determine that this wrting to the chip occurs.

What new firmware that caused the problem? It was the old firmware that had an issue which was supposedly corrected by firmware version v.1.02.

What is also strange is that there is now TWO occurrences of requests to DIM on the printer. Whereas before I recall it was only once that a request was made. So this second step might have something to do with it.

That is different and the first data I've read that could implicate something different in the chip, firmware, logic board or any combination including all.

Now cross your fingers.......because if that one bit that creates this non reset issue is a "fusible" link

It would have been simpler to just make the chip a ROM chip and not allow any resetting. But Canon did not. Given the singular case of Roy, and barring that the acknowledged ink level monitoring problem was for anything other than virgin OEM cartridges, it is unlikely Canon allowed/created a scenario where you can reset the chip to full, have the ink level show true low or empty but nothing in between. It's definitely on my list but it is lower down on the list given the lack of supportive data (eg other reports of the same circumstances).

 

[mikling]

I am running 1.02 or so I remember, not the latest. I do remember that it is not necessary to update. So I have a firmware that is up to date that will not like DIM chips. All my carts are DIMed
No I have not tried different chips...I could later in the week. I could use my Pro-10 chips.

I don't have knowledge of exactly what Canon's issue was but Canon must have run into some issue as some change regarding reading the ink levels were made. What the problem was is not known apparently. This is speculation, but in the event that Redsetter's printer firmware did not monkey around with DIM, they never would not ever see an issue. So that possibility exists.. or they did not see that new aspect of DIM or even maybe, the programmer/engineer overlooked it. But it looks like DIMed chips need some further procedures to be restored to like new again.

Definitely, the printer/firmware asks twice before it is finally released to a final DIM. So it makes you wonder... why twice.

I'm experiencing the same thing as Roy now, so he has company. I'm not worried. The good thing is that the printer works and the optical sensor appears to function and Redsetter will look further into it in the New Year 2014.

Eventually things will get sorted out and we will know what the solution is in a month or so. I am sure they'll figure out what the situation is definitively. This is demonstrative of what new things can crop up in each generation of printer and sometimes even German engineers can overlook things or not see it coming. Let's hope they can find a solution.